We all agree that every text we made should be well structured, cohesive and coherent. The best way to write a text is to divide it up into three main parts: the introduction, in which we present the topic we will develop, the main body, in which we develop the topic providing examples, personal ideas and references and the conclusion, in which we give additional information about the topic and reinforce our point of view.
In an academic paper it is necessary to develop the topic following the previous division. The language should be clear (even though Italians think that it would be better to use a qualified and refined language that, however, can also appear obscure to the reader) and the topic should be developed in a coherent and cohesive way, in order to avoid misunderstandings and repetitions.
I analysed my blog posts and I tried to understand whether I followed the previous instructions or not. In general I can say that I use to write every kind of text beginning with the presentation of the topic which will be better developed with information that I find on the web or in my personal notes and then I give my personal opinion in relation to the topic and provide a nice conclusion in which I try to give additional information and reinforce my personal ideas. I noticed that I always try to end my texts with a 'nice sentence' which could conclude my text in the best way and also give the reader the possibility to express his personal ideas and reflect on what I wrote.
Since blog post should not be too long so that they do not seem boring, introduction and conclusion are often very short. I simply say what we discussed in class and then I try to develop a good main body in which I explain most of all my personal attitude towards the topic.
I cannot make a definite comparison between my personal blog posts and an academic paper because they follow two different aims. My blog posts are addressed to young people like me while academic papers are addressed to people involved in the topic, often to professors. For this reason academic papers are structured in a way in which they can take for granted the fact that readers know perfectly well the topic. My personal blog post are written focusing on the fact that readers may not be members of my University and the language is mostly informal. I always keep in mind that if one of my friends reads my blog he should understand everything and I have the job of guiding him through the topic.
I am not still sure ablout the topic I will choose for my thesis but I think I will consider the actual Economic Crisis relating it with the Argentinian Crisis (...and this is not a kind of plagiarism from Mario!! I had this idea months before I went to Argentina so I am safe from stealing ideas!!! ). I found and interesting article using Delicious
(http://brettonwoodsproject.org/art.shtml?x=65659) which is titled: IMF's "role put into question": Argentina crisis evaluation.
It is well structured and already divided up in six paragraphs. It follows the hourglass structure, that is the simplest division in introduction, main body and conclusion. There is a brief introduction exaplaining the role that the International monetary Fund had in regards with the Argentina crisis. The article is developed following the chronological order and it has the form of a report which focuses on the different steps made by the IMP. It is coherent and cohesive because it provides examples from meetings and declarations made during the time by executive directors of the IMF. It begins with the description of the reasons why the IMF "erred by not pushing strongly enough for needed reforms" and adds other information relating to the first part. In the main body it is expressed the historical and economical situation and the efforts made by the Fund and the whole World in order to help Argentina. The conclusion supports the idea of the Argentinian old president and makes also considerations about the future.
The writing is not very clear because it includes many specific words. I think that this text is addressed to economists or people interested in this particular topic, which is the role owned by the IMF, and to people that know perfectly well the whole situation and have the right basis in order to understand every shade hided in this article.
However, in some way this article has also information perfectely understandable by everyone. I can understand this particular from the fact that abbreviations (such as IMF or IEO) are explained and also the role of the persons involved are well described. In conclusion, I think that the audience should have minimum basis to understang the article and economists can even understand further information relating them to their own knowledge.
I think that a blog post may follow the structure of this article because it is n't too difficult and quite 'easy' to read. The division in six paragraphs allows you to focus on the different arguments treated.
Since I found this article on the web I think that it could be a nice example of a blog post or comment made by an economist who knows who he is referring to.
In an academic paper it is necessary to develop the topic following the previous division. The language should be clear (even though Italians think that it would be better to use a qualified and refined language that, however, can also appear obscure to the reader) and the topic should be developed in a coherent and cohesive way, in order to avoid misunderstandings and repetitions.
I analysed my blog posts and I tried to understand whether I followed the previous instructions or not. In general I can say that I use to write every kind of text beginning with the presentation of the topic which will be better developed with information that I find on the web or in my personal notes and then I give my personal opinion in relation to the topic and provide a nice conclusion in which I try to give additional information and reinforce my personal ideas. I noticed that I always try to end my texts with a 'nice sentence' which could conclude my text in the best way and also give the reader the possibility to express his personal ideas and reflect on what I wrote.
Since blog post should not be too long so that they do not seem boring, introduction and conclusion are often very short. I simply say what we discussed in class and then I try to develop a good main body in which I explain most of all my personal attitude towards the topic.
I cannot make a definite comparison between my personal blog posts and an academic paper because they follow two different aims. My blog posts are addressed to young people like me while academic papers are addressed to people involved in the topic, often to professors. For this reason academic papers are structured in a way in which they can take for granted the fact that readers know perfectly well the topic. My personal blog post are written focusing on the fact that readers may not be members of my University and the language is mostly informal. I always keep in mind that if one of my friends reads my blog he should understand everything and I have the job of guiding him through the topic.
I am not still sure ablout the topic I will choose for my thesis but I think I will consider the actual Economic Crisis relating it with the Argentinian Crisis (...and this is not a kind of plagiarism from Mario!! I had this idea months before I went to Argentina so I am safe from stealing ideas!!! ). I found and interesting article using Delicious
(http://brettonwoodsproject.org/art.shtml?x=65659) which is titled: IMF's "role put into question": Argentina crisis evaluation.
It is well structured and already divided up in six paragraphs. It follows the hourglass structure, that is the simplest division in introduction, main body and conclusion. There is a brief introduction exaplaining the role that the International monetary Fund had in regards with the Argentina crisis. The article is developed following the chronological order and it has the form of a report which focuses on the different steps made by the IMP. It is coherent and cohesive because it provides examples from meetings and declarations made during the time by executive directors of the IMF. It begins with the description of the reasons why the IMF "erred by not pushing strongly enough for needed reforms" and adds other information relating to the first part. In the main body it is expressed the historical and economical situation and the efforts made by the Fund and the whole World in order to help Argentina. The conclusion supports the idea of the Argentinian old president and makes also considerations about the future.
The writing is not very clear because it includes many specific words. I think that this text is addressed to economists or people interested in this particular topic, which is the role owned by the IMF, and to people that know perfectly well the whole situation and have the right basis in order to understand every shade hided in this article.
However, in some way this article has also information perfectely understandable by everyone. I can understand this particular from the fact that abbreviations (such as IMF or IEO) are explained and also the role of the persons involved are well described. In conclusion, I think that the audience should have minimum basis to understang the article and economists can even understand further information relating them to their own knowledge.
I think that a blog post may follow the structure of this article because it is n't too difficult and quite 'easy' to read. The division in six paragraphs allows you to focus on the different arguments treated.
Since I found this article on the web I think that it could be a nice example of a blog post or comment made by an economist who knows who he is referring to.
No comments:
Post a Comment